I probably won't protest since I'm a long way away from the games and there are more effective things I can do with the time I have spare. But if I do it won't be with the intention of bringing your wank fantasies to life.

I probably won't protest since I'm a long way away from the games and there are more effective things I can do with the time I have spare. But if I do it won't be with the intention of bringing your wank fantasies to life.

yep, highlight the cause. Cmrd Gunner, and here was I thinking you an asocial wanker with a pale band where the wedding ring used to be and a tenuous grip on reality. Turns out you are well behind high profile televised disruptions. No pasaran mate, no pasaran

Sweatshop Labour stuff - Adidas have issues with this
Worker conditions in mines - Rio Tinto are a partner and supply the metal for the medals - there is some serious crap around their mines and environmental issues as well as worker condition etc. stuff that I could probably find some links for if I could be bothered
Obesity & Health, general food issues - McDonalds & Coca-Cola

pretty sure some of the other big sponsors / partners have dodgy stuff around them, I mean they are all major corporations so they are bound to ..

Slightly more of a stretch to links cuts/austerity due to the amount that's being spent on the olympics, or housing issues because the althetes village housing isn't going to be affordable for residents of the boroughs it's being built in iirc, but not exactly unconnected either.

But I agree that the best protest would be something that links with the olympics, rather than simply using the olympics as a way to get more coverage.

They keep saying stuff like that, but it looks like a fudge. It's been sold off to private developers, along with extra plots to develop in the future. The 50% seems to be based on the just under half of the existing units bought by Triathlon Homes 'for affordable housing':

The Village will deliver 2,818 new homes, including 1,379 already purchased by joint venture Triathlon Homes to become high-quality affordable housing.

Do we have confirmation that the non-social housing will be affordable? They're usually used as synonyms, aren't they?

And regardless of those numbers (important as they are), why is something built at taxpayer expense being sold off for a private company to profit from? That's our money, and it should stay in our pockets.

If you're claiming that "social housing" and "affordable housing" have different meanings, and that all of the Triathlon Homes will be affordable, it is up to you to provide the evidence. There's no mention of any such thing in the links I provided.

The 50% appears to be a fudge, to fool the easily fooled. It's 25% of existing units and <15% of the planned total. If you haven't, in fact, been fooled, show how the 50% claim is true wrt to existing units.

If you're claiming that "social housing" and "affordable housing" have different meanings, and that all of the Triathlon Homes will be affordable, it is up to you to provide the evidence. There's no mention of any such thing in the links I provided.

Click to expand...

You're talking complete bollocks again.

Affordable housing is... affordable housing, of which social housing (I presume you mean for rent) is one aspect.

Different figures again from the Indy. They're claiming 8000 additional homes on the extra plots, and 91 existing units being sold under shared-ownership schemes (which could just about squeeze into the 'affordable housing' definition, but all reports state that most units will be rented, not sold).

Trying to find an article which addresses this from a social justice pov instead of all this 'great investment opportunity' crap.

Highlighting the issues can be done from outside, and possibly by some spectators who don't mind losing their spectator rights. Getting some athletes to use the opportunity from the inside would be ace. Banners they can hang from their windows in the village (after they've finished competing, given than it is such a huge risk they would take to make any kind of statement)?

Squatting the athletes village would be perfect though, except for the many broken bones you'd get. The news value of it would be immense, and would easily highlight the issue of building homes that the residents can't afford.
I just think that you'd get badly beaten for even trying to do it, and probably it's going to be heavily fenced off and lots of security until the athletes turn up so you'd not have a chance to get into the houses.
Little point in doing it after they've left - would still be a good demo but wouldn't make international news, maybe not even national news.

But yeah, getting athletes involved would be great - there must be some GB athletes from around that area of London who'd understand the issue.

There's a journo who lives in a tower block next to the Olympic site who received a letter from the MoD today saying they are going to put a missile-firing equipment on his roof for two months during the Olympics. I shit you not.

I really thought this was a joke when I first heard, but it doesn't appear so...

Click to expand...

Well I'm guessing they are absolute last resort rather then the first line of defence.

Whilst the consequences of shooting down an aircraft over somewhere as densely populated would be pretty horrific, I hazard a guess it would be no where near as horrific as a plane hitting a crowded olympic stadium.